Campaign 2000: Notes to the Next President On Education Policy

There is no shortage of rhetoric about the problems of U.S.
education—nor do we lack proposed quick fixes. It has become
fashionable to exaggerate the shortcomings of our education system. At
the same time, we oversimplify the initiatives that are needed to
address real problems.

First, we should recognize that poverty and its associated societal
problems overwhelm everything else as a contributor to low student
achievement. That does not mean children from low-income families
cannot achieve in school. Many overcome the odds and excel.

Do not tell the public that our schools have failed or that
student achievement has declined. Those conclusions are not
supported by the evidence.

Nor does it mean educators should be relieved of the responsibility to
provide these children with a quality educational experience. But the
rhetoric about strengthening academic standards or holding teachers
accountable for students' test scores will not counter the very high
correlation between poverty and low achievement. That correlation is
pervasive, both in the United States and in other countries. Less
poverty, more than anything else, would translate into higher student
achievement.

Second, we should direct federal education resources to the
lowest-income school districts and schools:

If federal resources were concentrated on the poorest schools,
they would begin to address, if only in a small way, our major
inequalities in school finance.

It has
become fashionable to exaggerate the shortcomings of our
education system.

The lowest-income children typically
attend schools with the fewest resources. Moreover, a significant
proportion of these resources is spent on security, social
services, and maintaining deteriorating physical facilities,
leaving less for instructional purposes. Federal funds, in turn,
are too widely distributed to address the needs of low-income
children. A substantial amount goes to affluent districts, thereby
reducing the funding available for poorer districts. Additional
funding for low-income districts would increase the opportunity to
attract and retain highly qualified teachers and reduce school and
class size. If money doesn't matter, affluent parents—who
insist on expensive services in public schools and supplement those
services with private contributions or pay high private school
tuition—haven't heard the message.

We should be realistic about what federal education programs can
and cannot accomplish. The federal government currently accounts for
only 7 percent of the approximately $330 billion spent each year on
public elementary and secondary schools. The United States has nearly
15,000 school districts. A federal program funded at $200 million,
for example, provides an average of less than $14,000 per district,
an amount that would not support even one additional half-time
teacher for the entire district. Here, too, it would be wise to focus
federal resources on a limited number of well-funded programs that
serve schools and students with the greatest needs and avoid the
proliferation of underfunded programs—each with its own
bureaucracy and paperwork requirements—that promise more than
they can achieve.

The federal government also should ensure that its funding
results in additional spending on education, that it is targeted to
the intended beneficiaries, and that it does not supplant what
otherwise would have been spent by states and localities. Federal
programs can accomplish little if states and localities reduce
overall education expenditures, or funding for low-income schools, by
replacing their expenditures with federal grants.

Third, the American public should be given an accurate and realistic
assessment of the current status of U.S. education and the public
policies required to make a difference:

Do not tell the public that our schools have failed or that
student achievement has declined. Those conclusions are not supported
by the evidence. Do not cite the findings of international test-score
comparisons as an indicator of the success or failure of our schools.
These studies are seriously flawed. They tell us little about the
quality of education because countries differ substantially in a
range of variables the international studies do not, and cannot,
control—for example, student selectivity (overrepresentation in
the sample of the highest-achieving students), the proportion of
low-income students in the test-taking population, and the country's
practice with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of low-achieving
students, language-minority students, students with disabilities,
vocational or apprenticeship programs, and entire regions of the
country.

Do not assume that the latest quick fix will produce academic
benefits. "Connecting" every student to the Internet or ending social
promotion will do little to improve the overall quality of education.

Test-based accountability systems often do more harm than good
because they establish counterproductive
incentives.

Moreover, we need a lot more evidence before we can conclude, for
example, that charter schools will have a significant effect on
student achievement, that they will, indeed, include "all"
children, and that they can be staffed by an inexhaustible supply
of qualified teachers. Or that vouchers (the code word is "free
choice") can be financed in meaningful amounts and will result in
an ever-expanding supply of private schools that offer high-quality
education at modest tuition.

Perhaps most important, we need more information before we can
be confident that charter schools and vouchers will not
encourage racial, ethnic, and religious homogeneity within schools
as well as increased isolation of language-minority children and
children with disabilities.

Do not accept the current conventional wisdom that states and
school districts should hold teachers' "feet to the fire" in an
effort to raise students' standardized-test scores. Test-based
accountability systems often do more harm than good because they
establish counterproductive incentives. They turn schools into "cram
courses" designed to raise test scores rather than to educate
students; they encourage schools to assign children to special
education programs in order to reduce the number of low-achieving
children taking the test; and they are likely to discourage the most
qualified teachers from remaining in the teaching profession,
particularly in low-income districts. Moreover, even reported
test-score gains, or losses, typically are spurious and do not tell
us about the quality of a child's educational experience. They tell
us instead about cramming, familiarity with the test, and, if we look
behind the data, which students (low-achieving, special education,
language-minority) do, or do not, take the test.

Do not support education policies without assessing their
potential impact on our ability to recruit and retain highly
qualified teachers. If "reforms" are to strengthen education, they
will need to contribute to a school environment that attracts the
best teachers. We will not attract these teachers if salaries are
noncompetitive or if education policies create excessive or
contradictory demands. Many teachers will move to schools with better
working conditions or leave the teaching profession altogether. Our
lowest-income children will be hurt the most.

Do not hold schools responsible for the broader problems in our
society. One in five children lives in poverty. The aggregate
income of the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households is one-third the
aggregate income of the richest 1 percent.

Federal
funds are too widely distributed to address the needs of
low-income children.

Given the high correlation between
student performance and socioeconomic status, we should not blame
teachers for the resulting educational problems.

We will not raise student achievement by substituting rhetoric
for a realistic assessment of our educational problems and the
policies that will serve to address them. Proclamations that "all
children can learn to a high level" will not make it happen and,
instead, obscure the need for well-financed programs focused on the
lowest-income school districts. We can begin by giving the American
people accurate information about the major commitment needed to
make a difference in students' academic achievement.

Iris C. Rotberg is a research professor of education policy in
the department of educational leadership of the graduate school of
education and human development at George Washington University in
Washington.

Iris C. Rotberg is a research professor of education policy in the
department of educational leadership of the graduate school of
education and human development at George Washington University in
Washington.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.